Illegal encroachment into public areas by catering establishments needs to be tackled through a more effective and rapid response to illegalities, according to a report issued by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The report, which was drawn up by Environment Commissioner David Pace, calls for empowering local councils to carry out spot checks, issue on-the-spot fines and to suspend or withdraw the licences of repeat offenders.
Mr Pace found that the system of regulating and enforcing the various licences and permits involved to enable catering outlets to set up tables and chairs outside is “fragmented, unwieldy and incapable of providing an immediate and effective response to complaints of this nature.”
In the report, which came about following a complaint received by the Office of the Ombudsman, Mr Pace noted that outside extensions to catering outlets were “as much a part of the urban scene in Malta as flat roofs,” and that they were a welcome addition to public spaces.
But he recognised that in many cases, the space allocation was grossly exceeded, to the extent that catering outlets occupied much of the public space around them to the detriment of pedestrians. This, he noted, was particularly felt in cases where pedestrians are forced to step off the pavement into the road, putting themselves at risk.
To set up tables and chairs outside, catering outlets have to go through a somewhat bureaucratic process involving no fewer than four entities: the Government Property Division, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the Malta Tourism Authority and Transport Malta. Applicants require clearance from the MTA and from TM before applying for a Mepa permit, and should this permit be received, it is up to the GPD to issue a licence and to outline the area of encroachment.
But according to Mr Pace, the problems do not arise in this process, but when it comes to monitoring the encroachment of public land.
As things stand, two entities enforce regulations – the police and Mepa’s Enforcement Directorate – but Mr Pace points out that neither method provided a rapid response to illegal encroachment.
The police generally act on MTA complaint, but the process involves taking contraveners to court, which takes up the time and resources of the police and of the courts. Mepa enforcement actions, on the other hand, follow a lengthy enforcement process which starts with the issuing of an enforcement notice.
Mr Pace also discovered that local councils were not being involved in the monitoring of encroachment, even though “in reality this issue is a matter they should be very closely involved in.”
He recommends that this should change by putting local councils at the centre of a rapid response system, through which they would be empowered to carry out spot checks and issue on-the-spot fines – through their local wardens – and even suspend or withdraw the licences of repeat offenders. Any fines issued could then be contested at local tribunals, as are all other fines handed out by local wardens.
The report also urges the GPD to mark the encroachment area in a clear and permanent manner. Paint, Mr Pace notes, has proved to be unreliable, since it fades and is not tamper-proof.
Metal markers had once been used to define encroachment areas, but Mr Pace points out that the practice was discontinued “on health and safety grounds.” He notes that this assertion was “very mysterious,” since metal markers are used to define the position of stalls at the Valletta open market, and that he was not aware of any incident related to them.
Local councils should also be consulted when a Mepa permit is sought, according to Mr Pace, and they should also be responsible for the renewal of licences. This renewal, Mr Pace adds, should involve an inspection to verify that the markers have not been tampered with.